Posted by wargloryBut Svartorm, I think what you are describing is a utopian scenario (congrats on your success btw, that's pretty awesome). There is a bridge between self made wealth, and exploitation. Hedge fund managers are probably known to be the wealthiest human beings on the planet, in addition to a select few other individuals who by and sell commodities (often other companies). These people don't make anything, and often exploit loopholes at the expense of others to increase their value. When a company is bought and then re-sold for profit, benefits can be slashed and/or layoffs commonly occur. This allows for stakeholders in all forms, to profit. Is this illegal? Probably not. But the one clear flaw about capitalism, is that it's designed to make it easier for the rich to keep getting richer. And of course, with wealth comes influence, so these individuals and corporations can successfully lobby Congress to steer lawmakers to do their bidding.

Wealth distribution is something we should all be made aware of. This video tried to do that, but it was clearly biased and didn't ask the right questions, because this is most definitely not a black and white situation.

The video doesn't mention exploitation though, and you're not necessarily a bad person for being ultra-wealthy.

The methods you're describing, if done ethically, are all just methods of money making on massive scale. If it horrible/unethical/illegal if I buy a motorcycle on craigslist for $2,000, polish it and sell it for $3,000? If not, then why is it now a crime if I buy a textile factory for $15m, make it more profitable via new systems of management and sell it for $17m? I don't see these things as being bad.

I agree that it's easier to get richer if you're already rich, but the by-product of this is that you're creating opportunities for everyone else. Even the "pop star" in that video in the upper crust would employ a manager, a sound engineer, a backing band and dancers, and equipment crews. Success breeds opportunities for others, whom if they do well, can become successful themselves. I can't see the evil in this.

I think the key to anything I wrote in my reply, is that money buys power. This isn't evil necessarily, but it sways policy decisions in the favor of the ultra wealthy, who are a significant minority in this country. If you look at all of the tax breaks that corporations alone receive, the fact that the Supreme Court now considers a corporation to have the same rights as people, and the push now to break down individual contribution caps for political candidates. All of this is fueled by the ultra-rich, and is breaking down barriers that help to limit their power.

Last edited 10/16/13 7:04PM server time by wargloryEdit note/reason: n/a

Okay, I don't know where you got this from, but the fact that they use the term "cartel" to describe the Fed is absurd. A Cartel is a collaboration between companies to fix commercial interests. Private cartels are better known as "trusts," while public cartels, are those who work with the government to maintain a fixed price (examples of this are energy companies in many countries). Members of the Fed do not/cannot profit from their involvement, as the Fed is not a commercial endeavor. Any interest garnered, again, is not profit that goes into the pockets of the Fed members. There is no price fixing, no market influence, and no commodities influence, all of which are commercial entities. The exception to this might be in socialist countries like China, which do have state run corporations, but I'm not sure about that.

"No, banks are not self-funding, either individually or in the aggregate. The “out of thin air” language, while containing elements of truth, can be extremely misleading, and people using this language sometimes woefully under-represent the significance of central bank liabilities and the government in the US financial system. Banks can indeed create deposit account liabilities from thin air, just as you and I can create liabilities from thin air when we issue IOU’s and someone accepts them. But those deposit liabilities are debts of the bank, just as the IOUs that you and I issue are our debts. And these bank debts are not just so-called debts or pro forma debts. They are real debts which banks must and do routinely pay off in the course of doing everyday business; and the assets a bank uses to pay these debts come from sources external to the bank. A bank cannot simply manufacture its own payment assets from thin air."

"It’s certainly true that banks could maintain 100% of funds deposited, but if so, they wouldn’t be banks. Instead, they’d be warehouses for money, and those warehouses would charge depositors a fee for the right to deposit with them. Basically money saved would decline day after day and year after year; essentially compound interest in the reverse. Banks would routinely “break the buck.”"

#3 The Federal Reserve Has Destroyed More Than 96% Of The Value Of The U.S. Dollar

I am calling shenanigans. Proof please.

#4 The Federal Reserve Can Bail Out Whoever It Wants To With No Accountability

The Federal Reserve doesn't bail out anyone, Congress does.

#5 The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks Not To Lend Money

Please read up on Fractional Reserve Banking. There are links all over the Net.

190 countries have a central banking system, and every one of them use Fractional Reserve Banking. No Central bank creates "economic bubbles," but they do have the ability to reduce and increase inflation.

#7 The Federal Reserve System Is Dominated By The Big Wall Street Banks

Every central bank in the world is dominated by large banks, because that is the way the world's economies work.

Last edited 10/16/13 8:03PM server time by wargloryEdit note/reason: n/a2 total post edits

I think the key to anything I wrote in my reply, is that money buys power. This isn't evil necessarily, but it sways policy decisions in the favor of the ultra wealthy, who are a significant minority in this country. If you look at all of the tax breaks that corporations alone receive, the fact that the Supreme Court now considers a corporation to have the same rights as people, and the push now to break down individual contribution caps for political candidates. All of this is fueled by the ultra-rich, and is breaking down barriers that help to limit their power.

This is going in crazy non-video related directions, but it's fun to talk about so screw it.

I think that corporations having a hand in politics is strange and possibly unethical, but look at it another way for a second: They're more powerful than the central government already.

Getting into politics would almost be pointless for most of the ultra-wealthy, just because you're adding levels of complication and checks and balances to something that you previous completely controlled.

The thing that makes private sector businesses (Fed Ex, UPS, etc) more successful than their government counterparts (USPS) is that it doesn't need lots of time and piles of committees to do anything. It needs a phone call or two and they can make broad changes to their system and policy on the fly, making them infinitely more useful than government funded projects.

While an ultra-wealthy person is a small percentage of the population, the industries they own and/or control make them de facto governors in a sense. Their prosperity translates to more jobs under their employment and opportunity for advancement.

The removal of funding caps, etc was clearly done to help integrate corporations into government, but everyone agreed they were already going over the cap with fake companies channeling funds, etc.

This might sound insane, but having a country largely run by corporations, in this day and age, may actually work better than an elected government. Someone like Ted Turner, who built an empire off of a sign and billboard business, is more impressive to me as the head of a nation in an economic slump, than someone that could have been elected by 18 year olds who voted based on no understanding of their policies.

_______________________________________All brave men with hearts of war, ride the path of mighty Thor.

DREAM 1 - 2nd in PtsCage Rage 23 - 6th in PtsSecondary League Season 3 - 12th in PtsSecondary League Season 7 - 16th in WagersPrimary League Season 7 - 26th in WagersSecondary League Season 6 - 30th in PtsSecondary League Season 1 - 31st in PtsPrimary League Season 6 - 39th in WagersSecondary League Season 7 - 41st in Pts

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the playground is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no props, and may the mods have mercy on your soul.

Lol you did absolutely nothing but make it seem like what the fed has done is okay.

Also you are saying there is basically nothing wrong with our currency, if if there is something wrong with it, it wasn't caused my the fed.

Idk what to tell you man.

All you have to do is go to the store and see your 20 bucks hardly buys you shit now

I didn't say anything about the value of our currency, not did I confirm nor deny the Fed''s culpability. I am merely questioning what you know about the Fed's role and our entire economic structure. The stuff you posted is, for the most part, inaccurate.

Last edited 10/16/13 9:46PM server time by wargloryEdit note/reason: n/a

This is going in crazy non-video related directions, but it's fun to talk about so screw it.

I think that corporations having a hand in politics is strange and possibly unethical, but look at it another way for a second: They're more powerful than the central government already.

Had the near complete breakdown in our economic structure in 2008 not happened, I think you might have had a point, but the fact that when major corporation/firms like GM, Lehman Brothers, Fannie/Freddie etc risk imminent collapse, and the government has the ability to bail them out, that made people re-assign who actually has the most power in that scenario.

Getting into politics would almost be pointless for most of the ultra-wealthy, just because you're adding levels of complication and checks and balances to something that you previous completely controlled.

But that's the thing, regulations 20 years ago were probably more prohibitive than they are now, and that is because of policy changes influenced by the ultra-wealthy. There's always more money to be made somewhere.

The thing that makes private sector businesses (Fed Ex, UPS, etc) more successful than their government counterparts (USPS) is that it doesn't need lots of time and piles of committees to do anything. It needs a phone call or two and they can make broad changes to their system and policy on the fly, making them infinitely more useful than government funded projects.

That's not entirely true. With FedEx and UPS, you are paying for their service, there are no guarantees. While you still have to pay for USPS services, they do not need to be competitive, because they are not commercial. A good example of government doing the work better is Medicare. Medicare is a FAR superior product to any private insurance on the market today, by far. In fact, most private insurances base their fee schedules on that of Medicare.

Here is a cool link that discusses how Medicare is actually more efficient than private insurance.

While an ultra-wealthy person is a small percentage of the population, the industries they own and/or control make them de facto governors in a sense. Their prosperity translates to more jobs under their employment and opportunity for advancement.

Ideally, yes, but that same corporation wouldn't think twice about laying off 5000 employees if it meant giving their stockholders more stock options.

The removal of funding caps, etc was clearly done to help integrate corporations into government, but everyone agreed they were already going over the cap with fake companies channeling funds, etc.

Right, and I, along with many other Americans, think this is a terrible idea.

This might sound insane, but having a country largely run by corporations, in this day and age, may actually work better than an elected government. Someone like Ted Turner, who built an empire off of a sign and billboard business, is more impressive to me as the head of a nation in an economic slump, than someone that could have been elected by 18 year olds who voted based on no understanding of their policies.

An alpha male is an alpha male, and Ted Turner is no doubt that. But make no mistake, it takes a lot of Alpha to run the government, and it ain't necessarily like running a corporation.

Lol you did absolutely nothing but make it seem like what the fed has done is okay.

Also you are saying there is basically nothing wrong with our currency, if if there is something wrong with it, it wasn't caused my the fed.

Idk what to tell you man.

All you have to do is go to the store and see your 20 bucks hardly buys you shit now

I didn't say anything about the value of our currency, not did I confirm nor deny the Fed''s culpability. I am merely questioning what you know about the Fed's role and our entire economic structure. The stuff you posted is, for the most part, inaccurate.

the only thing posted that has been inaccurate was when you said the fed was a government agency. i proved otherwise.

take it how you want it. being a business finance major helps also

But yuh know what do i know about an economic system that CLEARLY does not work

You posted a link to a site where experts speak of a hypothetical scenario

That being- Would the US be better off had they stayed on the Gold Standard

It does not take an expert to see that the economy before we were taken off was better off then it is now.

Now by saying that i am not saying our economy is in the shitter because were are not on the gold standard.

Dozens of elite economists just stated that our economy would be worse if we were on the gold standard. Pretty cut and dry.

Also to address your Fed comment.

Seriously????? The Fed is a fucking monster. Yeah you're right it is important but thats only because it has been given the power to print money and do with it as it pleases. It prints money then buys US bonds with the money it prints. Further driving the value of the dollar down[/quote]

Every single dollar printed by the Fed is backed by the international banking system. It's not fantasy money.

[quote]You seem very uneducated in what the fed does and what Ron Paul has been arguing for decades.

1. The Federal Reserve is NOT government run. FACT

2. Gold has been used as money for ALL TIME. Yet we Americans come along and since 1932 we have devalued gold.

3. Ron Paul believes the market should determine the value of the dollar, not interest rates or anything like that. Bernanke is a COMPLETE idiot and it doesnt take an expert to see that

1. If you think this is fact than prove it with real sources.

2. Gold is a commodity bought and sold on the private marketplace. 50 years ago our nation woke up and realized we can't base our entire federal economy on the volatility of a commodity.

3. Ben Bernanke is a veteran economist, Ron Paul is a politician and a doctor. Would you take Ben Bernanke's position on how to properly deliver a baby over Ron Paul's? I wouldn't.

im assuming you saw my proof right?

also what are your claims backed up by? other than a few links? My case is certainly looking and sounding alot stronger than yours

You posted a link to a site where experts speak of a hypothetical scenario

That being- Would the US be better off had they stayed on the Gold Standard

It does not take an expert to see that the economy before we were taken off was better off then it is now.

Now by saying that i am not saying our economy is in the shitter because were are not on the gold standard.

Dozens of elite economists just stated that our economy would be worse if we were on the gold standard. Pretty cut and dry.

Also to address your Fed comment.

Seriously????? The Fed is a fucking monster. Yeah you're right it is important but thats only because it has been given the power to print money and do with it as it pleases. It prints money then buys US bonds with the money it prints. Further driving the value of the dollar down[/quote]

Every single dollar printed by the Fed is backed by the international banking system. It's not fantasy money.

[quote]You seem very uneducated in what the fed does and what Ron Paul has been arguing for decades.

1. The Federal Reserve is NOT government run. FACT

2. Gold has been used as money for ALL TIME. Yet we Americans come along and since 1932 we have devalued gold.

3. Ron Paul believes the market should determine the value of the dollar, not interest rates or anything like that. Bernanke is a COMPLETE idiot and it doesnt take an expert to see that

1. If you think this is fact than prove it with real sources.

2. Gold is a commodity bought and sold on the private marketplace. 50 years ago our nation woke up and realized we can't base our entire federal economy on the volatility of a commodity.

3. Ben Bernanke is a veteran economist, Ron Paul is a politician and a doctor. Would you take Ben Bernanke's position on how to properly deliver a baby over Ron Paul's? I wouldn't.

im assuming you saw my proof right?

also what are your claims backed up by? other than a few links? My case is certainly looking and sounding alot stronger than yours

Which part? And none of the links you provided I'd consider to be proof. I still very much disagree that the Fed is under private ownership. Ownership requires possession, and none of the banks own the currency in question. I have already admitted that the Fed is made up of, and run in part by private corporations, but as I said, this is to be expected in a country with private banking. You seem to insinuate that the Fed is a private enterprise, which is not at all accurate.

Had the near complete breakdown in our economic structure in 2008 not happened, I think you might have had a point, but the fact that when major corporation/firms like GM, Lehman Brothers, Fannie/Freddie etc risk imminent collapse, and the government has the ability to bail them out, that made people re-assign who actually has the most power in that scenario.

That goes against basic business though. "Good money doesn't follow bad." There were unique factors with each company that I'm sure you're aware of, but the basic idea is that if the government wasn't there to bail them out, they wouldn't have taken the stupid financial chances they did that put them in that mess.

For my two cents, at least with the auto industry, I think the government should have increased taxes on imports to force price increases on those cars. Would have drawn more people to domestic vehicles, or forced them to pay more for the alternative. Same with cotton industry and other domestic products that people pass over for cheaper versions of the same. It would be a way for government to get involved that helps itself and the domestic industry at the same time.

That's not entirely true. With FedEx and UPS, you are paying for their service, there are no guarantees. While you still have to pay for USPS services, they do not need to be competitive, because they are not commercial. A good example of government doing the work better is Medicare. Medicare is a FAR superior product to any private insurance on the market today, by far. In fact, most private insurances base their fee schedules on that of Medicare.

But FedEx and UPS post profits, while the USPS is a money pit. The entire structure of the post office is broken on a fundamental level, and you can't fix it because of all the hoops you need to jump through. If UPS was in the same situation, it would be fixed pronto because they wouldn't have to ask permission to change anything.

Ideally, yes, but that same corporation wouldn't think twice about laying off 5000 employees if it meant giving their stockholders more stock options.

And make the company appear more unstable, making weary investors avoid it. Layoffs are a short term solution that lead to long-term issues. The guy I learned the restaurant trade from came from wall street and ran a restaurant the same way, so I saw two sides to the business through him. There's short money and long money in every line of work.

An alpha male is an alpha male, and Ted Turner is no doubt that. But make no mistake, it takes a lot of Alpha to run the government, and it ain't necessarily like running a corporation.

True, but I think the system for voting in this country is broken and would rather have someone who earned a position with real visceral merit than someone elected by fools.

_______________________________________All brave men with hearts of war, ride the path of mighty Thor.

DREAM 1 - 2nd in PtsCage Rage 23 - 6th in PtsSecondary League Season 3 - 12th in PtsSecondary League Season 7 - 16th in WagersPrimary League Season 7 - 26th in WagersSecondary League Season 6 - 30th in PtsSecondary League Season 1 - 31st in PtsPrimary League Season 6 - 39th in WagersSecondary League Season 7 - 41st in Pts